Delhi District Court
State vs . Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. Sc No. 62 Of ... on 19 July, 2012
Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 (SOUTH EAST)
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 62/2011
Unique ID No. 02406R0307792011
FIR No. 243/2011
U/s. 341 & 307 r/w 34 IPC 25 Arms Act
PS : Ambedkar Nagar
State
Versus
Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda,
S/o Sh. Shayam,
R/o A55, Dakshinpuri,
Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. ..........Accused No. 1
Aakash,
S/o Sh. Munna Lal,
R/o A22, Dakshinpuri,
Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. ..........Accused No. 2
Instituted on : 23rd December, 2011
Argued on : 19th July, 2012
Decided on : 19th July, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Case of prosecution On 05.09.2011, on receipt of DD No. 42A, SI Gurjeet alongwith Constable Harinder reached at the spot. It was revealed that the injured has been shifted to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. No eyewitness or complainant was found at the spot. Leaving Constable Surender at the spot, SubInspector Gurjeet alongwith Constable Harinder went to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. They obtained MLC of the State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 1/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 injured Suraj Verma s/o Sh. Hans Raj r/o C184, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi. Alleged history of 'assault by sharp weapon' was noted on the MLC and nature of injury was opined by the doctor as 'grievous and sharp'. Patient was declared "unfit for the statement". SubInspector Gurjeet Singh recorded statement of injured Suraj Verma, who stated that he was studying in Class 8th. At about 09:00 pm, on 05.09.2011, when he was returning from the side of Sai Mandir, CBlock, Dakshinpuri after purchasing 'Jeera' (cumin) and was going towards his house. When he reached in front of his house No. C242, suddenly two boys came in front of him. They stopped him and uttered that "saale tu gali ka dada banta hai, aaj hum teri dadagiri nikale gai or tera khel khatam kar dete hai". The name of one boy was Aakash and name of the other boy he did not remember, but knew him. He took out knife from his pant and started hitting him. Complainant tried to save himself and turned backward. One knife was hit on his back. Thereafter, both the assailant inflicted many stab injuries on his thigh, buttocks and legs. It is stated that complainant shouted 'bachaobachao'. In the meantime, his father and brother came there and both the boys ran away. Injured was taken to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS in a TSR. SubInspector Gurjeet Singh prepared a rukka u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC and handed over to Constable Harinder for registration of the FIR. Attending Doctor handed over blood stained underwear and baniyan of the injured to the IO/SubInspector Gurjeet Singh in a sealed envelope. IO prepared a site map at the instance of Sandeep, brother of the injured. Crime Team inspected the spot. IO/SubInspector Gurjeet Singh collected blood stained concrete and the concrete sample from the spot. IO arrested accused persons. Disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded and the recovery of knife was effected from them. Seized exhibits were sent to the State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 2/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 FSL, Rohini for examination. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 01.12.2011. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 17.12.2011.
Charges
2. Charges u/s 341 r/w 34 and 307 r/w 34 IPC against both the accused persons as well as charges u/s 25 Arms Act against each of the accused were separately framed by this Court on 12.01.2012. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
3. The points which emerge for determination in this case are :
(i) Whether at about 09:00 pm on 05.09.2011, in front of H.No. C42, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi both the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Suraj Verma?
(ii) Whether accused persons inflicted stab injuries on the thigh, leg and buttock of Suraj Verma?
(iii) Whether accused persons can be imputed with the requisite intention or knowledge so as to hold them guilty u/s 307 IPC?
(iv) Whether button actuated knives were recovered from the possession of each accused?
4. In order to establish the accusations against the accused, prosecution examined twelve witnesses. Gist of the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses is as under:
4.1 SubInspector Gautam Malik (PW1), is duty officer who received information on 05.09.2011 from the wireless operator regarding a quarrel in which State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 3/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 knife blow was given by someone at house no. C184, Dakshin Puri. PW1 reduced this information into writing vide DD no. 42/A (Ex.PW1/A). PW1 recorded FIR (Ex.PW1/B) and made endorsement (Ex.PW1/C) on the rukka. 4.2 Suraj Verma (PW2), is Complainant. He deposed that on 05.09.2011, at about 09:00 pm, he was coming to his house after purchasing 'jeera' from a shop and when he reached in his gali near his house, both the accused persons namely Arun @ Damu and Aakash met him. Accused Arun abused him and caught his neck. Both the accused persons were having knives in their hands. First knife blow was given on his right thigh by accused Arun and revolved the knife in his thigh. He fell down. Then, both the accused Aakash and Arun gave several knife blows on his hips and on the lower portion of back. He shouted for help and rushed towards his house. His father Hansraj and brother Sandeep came in the gali, whereupon accused persons fled away from the spot. PW2 deposed that his father and his brother had taken him to private doctor, who provided firstaid and thereafter, he was shifted to Trauma Center, AIIMS. PW2 deposed that accused persons were having a grudge with them on the issue of their quarrel with their neighbours and once both the accused persons alongwith some other boys came to their house and threatened his father in favour of the neighbours. He deposed that police recorded his statement (Ex.PW2/A) in the hospital. PW2 deposed that before this incident, he had taken a video clip from his mobile phone of both the accused persons while they were preparing a 'arthi' in jolly mood and after this incident, he had shown the photo of Aakash from that clip to the police with the help of which he could be trace out. He is the witness to the arrest memos Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C. PW2 deposed that the knives were not recovered in his presence, but the police informed him about the State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 4/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 recovery of knives from the milk diary at the instance of both the accused persons.
PW2 stated that police did not record the disclosure statements of accused persons in his presence. He was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP on the point of recovery of knives and identification of baniyan. PW2 deposed that accused Aakash had taken out one knife from behind the TV in his jhuggi and accused Arun had taken out one knife lying behind from the shelf in his jhuggi. PW2 deposed that both knives were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/I respectively. He admitted that before sealing the knives, police prepared sketches of knives recovered from accused Aakash and Arun Ex.PW2/J and Ex.PW2/K. PW2 deposed that the disclosure statements were not read over to him and he could not tell the name of police official, who had written the disclosure statement of accused persons. He stated that police had written some papers after arrest of accused persons, but he could not tell the description and name of said document. 4.3 Constable Tej Pal (PW3), deposed that on 07.09.2011, he alongwith Constable Surender were on patrolling in the area of Auto market, Virat Cinema. At that time, two boys, namely Suraj Verma and Sandeep met them and informed them about two persons, who had stabbed one person on 05.09.2011, could be found behind toilets, Virat Auto market, Ambedkar Nagar and if raided, they could be apprehended. PW3 deposed that he along with Constable Surender reached there on their private bike and Suraj Verma and Sandeep also accompanied them in their vehicle. Suraj and Sandeep pointed out towards two persons, who had stabbed. The two persons were apprehended and their names were revealed as Akash and Arun. PW3 correctly identified both accused.
4.4 SubInspector Naresh Kumar (PW4) was incharge Mobile Crime State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 5/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 Team. He deposed that on 05.09.2011, at about 11:30 pm, he received information from the control room, pursuant to which he alongwith his staff, Assistant Sub Inspector Anoop, Fingerprint Expert and Constable Jaiveer, photographer reached at the spot i.e. in the gali in front of C242, Dakshinpuri, where IO/SubInspector Gurjeet Singh met them alongwith the staff, where blood was lying on the spot. PW4 inspected the spot and prepared Inspection Report (Ex.PW4/A) and handed over the same to the IO.
4.5 Sh. Hansraj (PW5), Father of the injured deposed that on 05.09.2011, after about 08:00 pm, he returned from his office to his residence at C184, Dakshinpuri. His son Suraj Verma had gone in the gali to buy 'Jeera' and after five minutes, he heard the alarm raised by his son. He alongwith his wife and his nephew Sandeep came out of the house and saw that their son was lying in the gali at a distance of about 100 feet from out residence in the injured condition and his clothes were blood stained and he was lying in the pool of blood. PW5 stated that the culprits ran away from the spot before their arrival. They informed the police and thereafter, took Suraj Verma to the Trauma Center, AIIMS. 4.6 Constable Jai Veer Singh (PW6), joined the investigation alongwith SubInspector Naresh and Assistant SubInspector Anoop. On reaching at the spot, PW6 took photographs of spot from different angles. Photographs are Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/4.
4.7 Doctor P. Jothi Nath (PW7), deposed that on 05.09.2011, injured Suraj Verma was brought to the hospital with the alleged history of "assault by sharp knife". On local examination, PW7 found four multiple irregular incised wounds over left buttock. The size of wounds was 2 X 2 cm. One incised wound State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 6/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 over the back of left thigh, size 8 X 4 cm, one over back of left leg, two irregular incised wound, size length 2 cm over back of right thigh, one wound of size 3 cm length, 7 cm above coccyx over lower back. PW7 opined kind of weapon as 'sharp'. The nature of injuries were opined as 'grievous'. PW7 prepared MLC which is (Ex.PW7/A).
4.8 Constable Harender Kumar (PW8), joined investigation alongwith SubInspector Gurjeet Singh. PW8 deposed that SubInspector Gurjeet received DD No. 43A regarding quarrel, pursuant to which he alongwith SubInspector Gurjeet reached at C184, Dakshinpuri, where it was revealed that a quarrel took place in the gali and the injured was shifted to Trauma Center, AIIMS. He deposed that in the meantime, Constable Surender, who was on patrolling at that time, also reached there. He left Constable Surender at the spot and went to Trauma Centre, AIIMS, where the injured Suraj Verma was found to be admitted and doctor declared him to 'fit for statement'. PW8 deposed that IO/SI Gurjeet collected MLC of injured and recorded his statement. IO prepared 'rukka' on the basis of the statement given to him and sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR. PW8 deposed that after getting registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR alongwith original rukka to IO. PW8 deposed that IO had seized one blood stained stone and sample of concrete from the spot. 4.9 Sh. Sandeep (PW9), Cousin brother of injured, deposed that on 05.09.2011, he was present at his house and at about 08:30 - 09:00 pm, he heard the noise from the gali. On hearing the noise, he alongwith his uncle (fufa) Hansraj Verma went out from the house and saw that in the gali in front of house No. C242, his cousin Suraj was lying. He alongwith his uncle Hansraj picked up injured Suraj. State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 7/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 PW9 deposed that the blood was oozing out from his body i.e. legs and buttocks. They shifted injured Suraj in the auto at Trauma Center, where he was got admitted. He was cross examined. In his cross examination, PW9 denied that he is residing with Suraj Verma. PW9 deposed that his brother Suraj was lying near the electric pole which was at a distance of about 50 meters from their residence. 4.10 Doctor Inder Mohan Khandelwal (PW10), conducted radiological examination of patient Suraj Verma, who was referred to them by the Department of Emergency. PW10 deposed that Xray chest - AP, Xray Pelvis were performed and no fracture was found on the performed X rays. X ray report is (Ex. PW10/A). 4.11 Constable Surender Singh (PW11), deposed that on 05.09.2011, he was on patrolling duty and at about 09:00/09:15 pm, when he reached at Sai Mandir, near CBlock, Ambedkar Nagar, he saw public gathered in the gali. Leaving PW11 at the spot, SubInspector Gurjeet Singh and Constable Harender went to the Trauma Center, AIIMS. PW11 deposed that on 07.09.2011, he alongwith Constable Tej Pal were on patrolling duty at Virat Auto Market near Virat Cinema, Ambedkar Nagar. At about 11:00 pm, SubInspector Gurjeet Singh had come there alongwith Suraj Verma and Sandeep. At the instance of Suraj Verma, two boys were apprehended by them. After inquiry, Arun @ Bhonda and Aakash were arrested vide memos Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. IO recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G. PW11 deposed that pursuant to the disclosure statement of Arun @ Bhonda, they were taken to Jhuggi No. 55, Viran Cinema, from where, accused Arun @ Bhonda got recovered a buttondar knife. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Aakash, he also got recovered a buttondar knife. He is witness to the site plan (Ex.PW11/B), prepared by the IO/SI Gurjeet Singh. State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 8/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 4.12 SubInspector Gurjeet Singh (PW12), investigating officer made endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW12/A). He apprehended accused persons and arrested them. PW12 recorded disclosure statement of accused Arun and Aakash and prepared sketches of knives Ex.PW2/H and Ex.PW2/J. He prepared seizure memos Ex.PW2/I & Ex.PW2/K and pointing out memo of place of occurrence Ex.PW11/A. Statement of accused
5. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication by the police at the instance of complainant. They produced two witnesses in their defence.
6. Ms. Meenu (DW1), neighbourer of accused Aakash and Arun @ Damu deposed that on 07.09.2011, in the morning hours twothree police officials came at the residence of Arun @ Damu and Aakash and were about to take them away. People of the locality (mohalla) gathered and inquired from them as to why they were being taken away. Police informed them that accused persons had beaten someone. DW1 deposed that on the intervention of all the people of locality, police was not allowed to take accused persons away and they told police that they shall bring accused persons to the Police Station at about 10:00 am. Sixseven people of the locality took the accused persons to the Police Station at about 10:00 am. Police made them go away and detained accused persons in the Police Station.
7. Sh. Rajinder (DW2), deposed that he knew Suraj Verma (injured) as well as accused Arun @ Damu and Aakash, who were residing in the same locality. On 05.09.2011, at about 09:00 pm, twothree persons came and caused injuries to State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 9/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 Suraj Verma. He saw twothree persons running away and having knives in their hands. DW2 deposed that he could identify them, if shown to him. DW2 deposed that accused Arun @ Damu and Aakash had not caused any injury to Suraj Verma. In cross examination, DW2 deposed that he was standing at a distance of 2025 houses away from the spot in the gali and he did not see the assailants while they were actually inflicting injuries. He saw them, while they were running. DW2 deposed that he tried to chase those persons. According to DW2, he saw the injured at the spot, but did not ask him about the culprits. DW2 stated that he did not tell anything to the Police about the incident or about chasing the culprits. DW2 deposed that he was gas cylinder supplier and the accused persons were his customer of gas due to which he had friendly relation with the family members of the accused persons and had come to the Court alongwith the family members of the accused persons and was deposing at their instance.
8. Learned Addl. PP submits that the material/injured witnesses namely Suraj Verma (PW2) has narrated in detail as to how the incident took place and his testimony has remained intact and that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.
9. PW2 has categorically deposed that at about 09:00 pm, on 05.09.2011 when he was coming towards his house after purchasing cumin (jira) from a shop, then, both accused persons Aakash and Arun abused him and caught hold of him. Both the accused persons gave knife blow on the right thigh of PW2. Thereafter, both the accused persons gave several knife blows on his hip and on the lower portion of the back. Sh. Hansraj, his father (PW5) as well as of Sh. Sandeep, Cousin of injured (PW9) have deposed that they saw that Suraj was lying in the gali State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 10/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 and blood was oozing out from his legs and buttock. Thus, ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by Doctor P. Jyothinath (PW7), who proved MLC (Ex.PW7/A), prepared by him. Injuries noted in the MLC (Ex.PW7/A) as four multiple irregular incised wound over left buttock (2x2 cm). One over the back of left thigh (8 x 4 cm), one over back of left leg, two regular incised wounds (2 cm), over back of right thigh, one wound of size 3 cm, 7 cm above coccyx in the lower back.
10. Mr. Gautam, Learned Counsel for accused Aakash submits that in the complaint (Ex.PW2/A), complainant stated that the two boys came in front of him and threatened him "Saale tu gali ka dada banta hai. Aaj teri dadagiri nikalenge or tera khel khatam kar dete hai" whereas, in his testimony, complainant (PW2) deposed that the accused persons were having grudge with them on the issue of their quarrel with their neighbors and once both the accused persons alongwith other boys had come to their house and had threatened his father in favour of the neighbor. Therefore, Learned Counsel argued, that background facts and the motive for the quarrel has not been proved. This Court finds no merits in this argument. Motive or background has no significance, in view of the coherent and unimpeached testimony of the injured witness on record.
11. Mr. Mohd. Talat, Learned counsel for accused Arun @ Damu submits that at the best, the ingredient of section 324 IPC may attract, as accused had no intention to kill the complainant and they had neither inflicted any injury on the vital portion of the body which they could have, if they so desired or had any such intention. He urged that the intention is to be gathered from the acts and the surrounding circumstances. Although doctor (PW7), who examined the injured has State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 11/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 opined, nature of injuries as "grievous", but whether the injuries are grievous or not can be proved, if it is covered by any of the kinds of hurt designated as 'grievous' u/s. 320 IPC. Injuries are not of the type mentioned in section 320 IPC. Therefore, it cannot be held that the injuries which have been inflicted upon the complainant are 'grievous'.
12. Sh. V. P. Yadav, Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that when injury in question can be said to fall under part Eighthly of section 320 IPC, if a person is unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, even then, the injury would be referred as 'grievous'. He submits that space of 20 days is not required for this. He submits that although (PW2) has deposed that he was discharged from the hospital on 06.09.2011, yet he stated that on 07.09.2011, he was able to walk with the help of two person's support and he added that even right now, he could walk by taking support of two persons. This argument merits rejection as there has to be specific evidence in this regard and none of the prosecution witness has deposed that complainant was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during the span of twenty days. It cannot be held that the injury sustained by the complainant (PW2) would be covered by the clause eighthly of Section 320 IPC.
13. Accused have been charged, inter alia, for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. In order to prove an offence u/s 307 IPC, it must be proved that the accused committed an act and that the said act was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit murder. Intention is a question of fact which has to be gathered from the 'act' committed by the accused and knowledge is the awareness of the consequences of the act. It must be with the knowledge that specify consequences would result or could result by doing an act. Admittedly, accused State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 12/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 persons have not inflicted any injury on the vital portion of the body. It is not the case of prosecution that injuries were inflicted on the legs and thigh only because injured was trying to save himself. In the factual matrix of the instant case, ingredients of section 307 IPC are not attracted.
14. The Court while appreciating the evidence cannot attach undue importance to the minor discrepancies, which do not shake the version of the prosecution case. Presence of accused at the spot, at the time and place in question has been established by the consistent testimony of prosecution witnesses. Evidence on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to the injured Suraj Verma. Evidence on record, clearly indicates that both the accused persons used knives and caused injuries to the injured and that there was meeting by mind between the accused persons. In their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused have simply pleaded innocence and false implication by the police at the instance of the complainant. They have not explained as to why complainant would falsely implicate them. Nature of injuries sustained by Suraj Verma (PW2) is opined by the doctor (PW7) as 'grievous' but to hold an injury as 'hurt' or 'grievous hurt' should fall within the four corners of Section 320 IPC. Injuries in question are not covered by Section 320 IPC. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt that the injuries sustained by Suraj Verma is 'grievous'.
15. Now, the next point to be considered is, whether prosecution has proved beyond doubt that both the accused were found in possession of button actuated knives. The incident allegedly occurred on 05.09.2011 and the accused were arrested on 07.09.2011 from nearby Shauchalaya, Virat Auto Market near their State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 13/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 residence. According to the IO (PW12), accused Arun led police party to Jhuggi No.55, Ambedkar Camp, Behind Virat Cinema and took out one buttondar knife from behind the shelf in the jhuggi regarding which, IO prepared seizure memo Ex.PW2/I. Similarly, accused Aakash led the police party to Jhuggi No.22 Ambedkar Camp, Behind Virat Cinema and took out one buttondar knife from behind T.V. in the jhuggi, regarding which, IO prepared seizure memo Ex.PW2/K. These seizure memos are allegedly witnessed by the complainant Suraj Verma (PW2), but it is important to note that the complainant (PW2) in his testimony, categorically deposed that the knives were not recovered in his presence and police informed him about the recovery of knives from the milk dairy at the instance of both the accused persons. As per IO (PW12), he recorded disclosure statement of both the accused before effecting recovery, whereas, complainant (PW2) deposed that the police did not record the disclosure statement of the accused persons in his presence. In this regard, Learned Addl. PP cross examined complainant (PW2), in the cross examination conducted by Learned Defence Counsel, complainant deposed that disclosure statements of the accused were not read over to him and he could not tell the name of police officials, who recorded disclosure statement of the accused. He further deposed that when on 07.09.2011, he had gone to the houses of the accused persons alongwith the police, the accused persons were arrested before his visit to their houses. Although, sketch of the knives Ex.PW2/J & Ex.PW2/H bears signatures of the complainant, but he could not tell if the sketches of the knives were prepared at the house of the accused or elsewhere. It is also significant to note that the seizures memos are purported to have been prepared on 08.09.2011 whereas, according to the complainant he visited the spot alongwith the IO on 07.09.2011. In State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 14/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 view of the aforesaid circumstances obtaining on record, the recovery of the knives from the accused appears to be highly doubtful and charges u/s 25 Arms Act against the accused nor proved.
16. To conclude, this Court finds that offence u/s 307 IPC is not proved. However, evidence of the prosecution witnesses as regards voluntarily restraining and causing hurt to injured Suraj Verma (PW2) is trustworthy and has remained un impeached in material particulars. In view of aforesaid discussion, this court finds that prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons Arun @ Damu and Aakash. In the result, both the accused namely Arun @ Damu and Aakash are hereby convicted u/s 341 r/w 34 IPC and 324 r/w 34 IPC.
announced in the
open court on (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA)
19th July, 2012. Additional Sessions Judge04
(SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi
State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 15/15
Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04 (SOUTH EAST)
SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 62/2011
Unique ID No. 02406R0307792011
FIR No. 243/2011
U/s. 341 & 307 r/w 34 IPC 25 Arms Act
PS : Ambedkar Nagar
State
Versus
Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda,
S/o Sh. Shayam,
R/o A55, Dakshinpuri,
Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. ..........Accused No. 1
Aakash,
S/o Sh. Munna Lal,
R/o A22, Dakshinpuri,
Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi. ..........Accused No. 2
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present : Sh. Mohd. Talat, Counsel for convict Arun.
Sh. D. C. Gautam, Counsel for convict Aakash.
Sh. WasiUrRehman, Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. V. P. Yadav, Counsel for complainant Suraj.
Convicts on bail.
1. Having convicted the accused persons Arun @ Damu and Aakash u/s 341 r/w 34 IPC and 324 r/w 34 IPC, I have heard submission advanced by Learned State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 16/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 Defence Counsels, convicts in person, Learned Addl. PP as well as Sh. V. P. Yadav, Learned Counsel for the complainant on the point of sentence.
2. Learned APP submits that convicts caused injuries to the complainant with knife and therefore, they do not deserve any leniency and should be awarded maximum punishment.
3. Per Contra, Learned Counsels for the convicts submit that convicts are not previous convicts and no other cases are pending against them. He submits that Convict Arun @ Damu is 23 years of age having aged Grandmother and one younger brother aged 20 years. He is a worker. Convict Aakash is 19 years of age having family comprising of mother, father, one brother and two sisters, who is working as hawker. It is submitted that they are well settled in life. They repent their act. Learned Counsels have prayed for taking a lenient view and giving them a chance to rehabilitate in the society. It is submitted that both the convicts remained in Judicial Custody during trial w.e.f. 08.09.2011 till 13.01.2011 & from 07.07.2012 till 10.07.2012 i.e. for a total period of 131 days.
4. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the Court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing leniency. An act of balancing is needed. A balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances noted above and particularly the conduct of accused persons during trial, I am of the considered view that convicts should be given an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate themselves in the society and to become responsible citizen of state. I deem it expedient in the interest of justice to release convicts on probation instead of sentencing them. They are ordered to be State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 17/15 Unique ID No . 02406R0307792011 released on furnishing a bond of probation for a period of one year in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety in the like amount. In the meantime, they shall keep peace and maintain good behaviour. During this period, convicts shall appear to undergo sentence as and when called upon. It is further ordered that the convicts shall deposit in the court, a sum of Rs.15,000/ each as compensation. In default of payment of compensation, convicts shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. Total sum of Rs.30,000/ deposited by the convicts as compensation shall be released to complainant Suraj Verma. At this stage, as prayed by the Learned Counsel for the complainant, instead of depositing the compensation amount in the Court and then releasing it to complainant through refund vouchers, which is a time consuming process. Amount of Rs.15,000/ to be paid as compensation by each of the accused is ordered to be given to the complainant directly for the sake of convenience. Accused persons have furnished bonds and paid compensation to the complainant. File be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the
open court on (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA)
27 July, 2012.
th
Additional Sessions Judge04
(SouthEast) Saket/New Delhi
State Vs. Arun @ Damu @ Bhonda & Ors. SC No. 62 of 2011 18/15